'Complete certainty,' what exactly does that mean? It seems to imply that we are able to know something without doubtfulness. In fact, it seems to be saying that it is a justified true belief. But what makes a 'complete certainty' 'complete' and 'certain.' To understand this we must first understand and grasp what the two areas of knowledge of mathematics and the natural sciences say they accomplish this goal. We must first understand what makes something a complete certainty to the scientists and mathematicians that study in these subjects and how the people, who believe in their findings, accept these 'complete certainties.'
Mathematics and the natural sciences are both hard sciences that are consistently backed up by evidence and proof. Because of this, these two areas of knowledge are usually picked as the best in terms of gaining absolute certainty. Both are supported and backed by numbers and this makes the two more precise, which makes it a lot more accepted and understandable than ethics and religions. Numbers give the ability of universal language between people and allows everyone to understand each other without the barriers of misconceptions. In pertaining to the four ways of knowing, let us see how mathematics achieves 'complete certainty' and the extent to which it falters.
Mathematicians believe that since math is a very concrete and hard science, it is pretty much infallible. Through reason, math can consistently prove itself with numbers and evidence of working algorithms and equations that will always have the same answers as long as the laws of math are followed. Though, some math concepts are theoretical, most are laws that cannot be disproven. For example, the laws of addition, subtraction, multiplicat...
... middle of paper ...
...e this hard science of nutrition, one of uncertainty, and not 'complete certainty.'
Unclearnesses in natural sciences like this and even in math affects certainty in many sciences. Many scientists use math that can be accurate but uncertain, and this can further prevent them from reaching 'complete certainty.' Relations between areas of knowledge in broad make it hard to state whether 'complete certainty' is even remotely possible in natural sciences and in mathematics. “As the physicist Richard Feynman once said: 'Science is a long history of learning how not to fool ourselves.'” It is this very quote into why the natural sciences and mathematics have had a great success into finding 'complete certainties.' That limit on their extent however, can only become less and less as we advance in technologies and realize where we can improve on our errors and fallacies.
Before the 1800’s, children were looked upon as only property. During this time, if a couple were divorced, the children would go directly to the father, because “women were not permitted to own property” (Costanzo & Kraus, 2012). This was practice in child custody was known as “the legal doctrine of Pater familias” (Costanzo & Kraus, 2012). However by the 1800’s thoughts on child custody had changed to what is known as “best interest of the child standard” or BICS (Costanzo & Kraus, 2012). BICS is pretty self-explanatory; its meaning is that the thoughts and feelings of a child or children caught in a divorce were taken into account over those of the adults involved in the case. The child (ren) was at that time placed within the best situation. Since not everyone was in agreement over what is for the best of a child or children caught in a divorce, once again things regarding child custody changed.
Descartes was the first western philosopher to attempt to educate others on a puzzling question: how can one know with certainty anything about the world around us? “I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last” (Med 1, 12). In writing this meditation Descartes freed his mind of all information, and encourages the reader to do so as well, so that he could destroy established opinions. In order to determine whether there is anything we can know with certainty, he concludes that we must disregard all we were taught and then rebuild our knowledge into new and exciting philosophical foundations. If there was any notion that cannot be questioned, we should, for the time being, pretend that everything we know is disputable. However, Descartes did find the possibility of fully doubting absolutely everything unachievable, as one cannot truthfully fake all studied knowledge. However, he suggested that we, as skeptics, should doubt individual principles and think for ourselves.
In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes narrates the search for certainty in order to recreate all knowledge. He begins with “radical doubt.” He asks a simple question “Is there any one thing of which we can be absolutely certain?” that provides the main question of his analysis. Proceeding forward, he states that the ground of his foundation is the self – evident knowledge of the “thinking thing,” which he himself is.
The relationship between certainty and doubt has been a heavily debated topic throughout history and especially in the mid-1800s. For most people, having some doubt on one’s opinions is much more beneficial than having absolute certainty because doubt allows one to review his potential choice and leaves room for him to make improvements on his choice. Someone who lives with absolute certainty cannot weigh the pros and cons because he has the confidence that what he believes is the right decision for everyone; however, there are situations in one’s life where absolute certainty is necessary, such as in team sports. With the exception of competitions, however, it is more important for one to have doubt in his or her life because doubt allows
“9x – 7i > 3 (3x – 7u)” and asked to solve for “i”. Any mathematician who has been introduced to algebra would immediately execute the procedures necessary to isolate the “i”. Doing so, I determine the answer to be “i < 3 u”. According to mathematical reasoning that is the only true answer, and any mathematician around the world would get the same answer. Mathematics is approached without question or doubt unless another person attempts to solve the problem and arrives at a different answer. At that point, the two mathematicians would closely scrutinize the procedures used by both and eventually, confirm the answer to be “i < 3 u”. No matter where in the world one travels, mathematics is a universal concept. It is a connecting factor for all humans to share knowledge. Different units can be used for the same measurements, but there are always conversions and equations that can be used to determine values for comparison, such as converting a dollar to a Euro or inches to centimeters. Truth in mathematics is approached in a universal manner and concludes that when anyone a...
is unreliability. The only thing they can be certain of is uncertainty. Yet, there is but a single difference
...ntific it is possible that it may be proven wrong when the theory is actually correct, just that the experiment chosen to test the theory is wrong. As I have already mentioned, I feel that too look at the theory in terms of science is damaging to a theory which doesn't need scientific backing to justify it. I feel that it is just as important to discover truths by observation and deduction as it is to do so in a strictly scientific manner.
However, by making the assumption that all statements are universally either “true” or “false”, he dismisses perfectly logical scientific explanations which are merely outdated. Specifically, he is saying that explanations that were previously accepted by the scientific community but are no longer due to “ampler evidence now available...was not-and had never been-a correct explanation” (138). This is simply not true, as the “correctness” of an explanation is not binary; that is, there may exist some explanations which provide partial explanations which may be perfectly accurate in some contexts, but misleading or even wrong in others. I will refer to this as the context dependency of scientific laws. A good example of such a phenomenon with more than one correct explanation is how electricity is produced. Electricity can be explained as the motion of electrons, which are subatomic particles that circulate around the nucleus of an atom. The Bohr model gives this explanation, claiming that an atom looks akin to our solar system. Recently, more accurate models like the Schroedinger model have come through to state that the Bohr model is not entirely accurate, and that the existence of electrons around atoms in certain places is based on probabilistic models. Despite this new information, the Bohr model can still be used to explain electricity and the motion of
...e areas of knowledge, one could argue that mathematics, art and the natural sciences share the same truth and that there is indeed no difference, however, they may share the same truth but yet it is used and defined different in each Area of knowledge.
Moritz Schlick believed the all important attempts at establishing a theory of knowledge grow out of the doubt of the certainty of human knowledge. This problem originates in the wish for absolute certainty. A very important idea is the concept of "protocol statements", which are "...statements which express the facts with absolute simplicity, without any moulding, alteration, or addition, in whose elaboration every science consists, and which precede all knowing, every judgment regarding the world." (1) It makes no sense to speak of uncertain facts, only assertions and our knowledge can be uncertain. If we succeed therefore in expressing the raw facts in protocol statements without any contamination, these appear to be the absolutely indubitable starting points of all knowledge. They are again abandoned, but they constitute a firm basis "...to which all our cognitions owe whatever validity they may possess." (2) Math is stated indirectly into protocol statements which are resolved into definite protocol statements which one could formulate exactly, in principle, but with tremendous effort. Knowledge in life and science in some sense begins with confirmation of facts, and the protocol statements stand at the beginning of science. In the event that protocol statements would be distinguished by definite logical properties, structure, position in the system of science, and one would be confronted with the task of actually specifying these properties. We fin...
After considering all the described points in this paper, it can be rightly said that there is a considerable difference between science and other types of knowledge.
It shows that in this spherical universe one can go straight but never for very long. If you are certain you are going in a straight line think again. But these facts are known, if not by the general public then at least by mathematicians. However Max Born states the theory only holds water if the exact sphere of reference is specified, if nothing is certain then the sphere of reference can never be known to a point where there is no question as to it being perfect, therefore a basic theory of motion is null and void. The statement “nothing can be known with certainty'; holds true to the vast unending universe all the way down to the tinniest subatomic particle. Everything is moving; nothing can be studied to so exactly that there is no question about the object, because the act of studying an object changes the object.
...our questions, we need to work hard to acquire training in learning scientific materials either through a teacher or with our own strive in gaining knowledge. Our modern world is based on science’s role and different aspects of scientific effort to clarify and to shed light to our problematic conditions. More over, as human being, we all want to have a pleasurable enlighten for our doubts or curiosity, nevertheless, we need to realize that, there is limitation to all of these discoveries. We need to consider that scientist always do their best for welfare of human conditions. yet we can’t hid the fact that the world of science is still uncertain an incomplete.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for certainty is “known or proved to be true”. But can something ever truly be certain? . There is always something that could occur that could derail something from happening. However, there is sometimes a sense of certainty that one has, and this sense, whether true or false, can create a strong feeling of confidence in someone or something. An aspect of certainty that is commonly overlooked is that in certain situations, thinking something is certain can inspire hope in someone. This notion of having confidence can play a unique role on one’s mind and thought process. A feeling of certainty can inspire hope in someone, believing that something is set in stone, and this feeling acts as a driving force in the attitude of that one person. Another important way in which certainty can affect someone is through someone’s decision-making. When something, usually a situation, is seen as “certain”, this feeling can bring about a gargantuan deal of confidence, and confidence is also a very influential force. Confidence often kickstarts someone, lighting a fire beneath them, and driving them to reach their goal or
The history of math has become an important study, from ancient to modern times it has been fundamental to advances in science, engineering, and philosophy. Mathematics started with counting. In Babylonia mathematics developed from 2000B.C. A place value notation system had evolved over a lengthy time with a number base of 60. Number problems were studied from at least 1700B.C. Systems of linear equations were studied in the context of solving number problems.